There's been a lot of media speculation following recent announcements by several nations that finally decided to send battle tanks to Ukraine..As of now, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and even Canada, have pledged to send the much needed weapons to help President Volodymyr Zelensky’s troops battle the Russian invaders..Some critics say it is too little too late. Others, that some of the weapons aren’t really what Ukraine needs. Others even say it’s all for show; just a PR exercise..One might say that's the case for the Trudeau government, which is sending just four Leopard 2 tanks..But keep in mind, even four of those tanks can do a lot of damage — if they are in good working order..On a more significant note, the US is sending 31 M1 Abrams “Red Ace” tanks, the equivalent of one tank battalion; Germany will initially send a company of 14 Leopard 2 tanks; while the UK is sending 14 Challenger 2 battle tanks..France also promised 12 more Caesar truck-mounted artillery guns from Nexter and a complete medium-range air defence system from Thales..How do these weapons compare? And will they help Ukraine?.Let’s start with the Abrams tank, which saw action during the 1991 Gulf War..While the tank is one of the most protected tanks in the world — it uses composite armor, reinforced with depleted uranium armor mesh — it can mount add-on explosive reactive armor, making it well protected against most anti-tank weapons..It has one major issue, however, it involves keeping the desert sand out of its gas turbine engine..With a lot of air being pushed through the engine, “there were big concerns about it ingesting sand and not working,” said John Nagl, a US Army War College professor who led Red Ace’s platoon and later served in a tank battalion task force in the Iraq war that started in 2003..The platoon “spent a whole lot of time literally banging our air filters,” he told Financial Times in a special report..Nagl’s experience is not unique. For decades, armoured units of the US Army lamented the long logistical tail needed to maintain the Abrams’ warfighting capability in combat zones..It was those concerns that prompted the counterintuitive briefings by the Pentagon last month, in which senior US defence officials repeatedly maligned the Abrams after requests from Berlin and Kyiv that the tank be sent to Ukraine, FT reported..Ukraine will get roughly twice as many European-made tanks, primarily the German Leopard 2, which are viewed by military experts as the best match for the defending army..The main armament of all Leopard 2 tanks is a smooth bore 120-mm cannon made by Rheinmetall. This is operated with a digital fire control system, laser rangefinder, and advanced night vision and sighting equipment..The intense maintenance and logistics needed to keep the Abrams battle-ready make it less ideal for foreign armies such as Ukraine’s, which simply needs weapons that work well, FP reported..But it is also a symptom of an American defence procurement system that, critics argue, repeatedly over-complicates its big military platforms, loading them up with pet technologies that drive up costs and make them difficult to maintain..“There’s a bias in the Pentagon to buy the most exquisite defence [systems],” but other countries “just need whatever can get the job done,” said Josh Kirshner, a managing director at Beacon Global Strategies, a strategic advisory firm..Sometimes countries such as Ukraine, which needs what’s useful on the battlefield now, “don’t want the Cadillac of defence items, they just need ‘good enough’ gear.”.Military experts say the Leopard and the Abrams achieve roughly equivalent results..Nagl stressed that the M1 Abrams “is a terrific tank, but it's an American tank and the American way of war demands all the logistics in the world.”.The key difference between the Abrams and the Leopard is the engine..The Abrams has a 1,5000-hp turbine engine, akin to that of a jet, while the Leopard has a traditional diesel engine, the go-to power source for tanks globally that functions more like that of a truck..Its V12 twin-turbo diesel engine is made by MTU Friedrichshafen..They require completely different types of machinery and crews have to be trained to be mechanics on specific gadgets, such as the Abrams’ 120-mm gun..Ukrainian soldiers are perfectly capable of learning how to operate and maintain an Abrams — but time is of the essence and the turbine engine’s complexity will warrant longer training than on the Leopard, FP reported..With so much experience on diesel engine tanks, the Ukrainians have a higher baseline of knowledge going into Leopard preparations..“Knowing how to repair a Volkswagen Beetle doesn’t necessarily tell you how to repair an F1 racing car,” said Stephen Biddle, an adjunct senior fellow for defence policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank..A gas turbine engine “will obtain very high acceleration in exchange for very high fuel consumption” but has “very finicky behaviour,” Biddle added..Aside from needing meticulous maintenance, the Abrams requires a steady supply of a greater number of spare parts. Its supply network is in the US, much farther away than Leopard parts in Europe..Another supply factor is fuel — the Abrams, which needs its 500-gallon tank refilled every day, uses jet fuel, which is much harder to come by than diesel fuel..Enter the UK’s Challenger 2 tank. The Ukraine Armed Forces are learning how to operate it in England, as I write this, and doing well, according to those in the know..Built in the late 1990s, it's more than 20 years old, but it will be the most modern tank at Ukraine's disposal. The tanks will provide Ukraine with better protection, and more accurate firepower..The vehicle is equipped with an L30 120-mm rifled tank gun, firing both long rod penetrator and High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) ammunition types..While the donation alone is not considered a game-changer, it's hoped the UK's move will inspire other countries to donate more modern equipment to help Ukraine..So will these tanks be effective?.Here is what one expert had to say..Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis said the West sending tanks to Ukraine “creates real problems” for Russian President Vladimir Putin..Putin is trying to scare the West with the Kremlin’s comments that NATO countries’ move to send tanks to Ukraine increases their “direct involvement” in the conflict, Stavridis told WABC 770 morning show “The Cats Roundtable,” and reported by The Hill..It’s also a matter of sheer numbers, he said..“When you put these three types of tanks together and you bring them in real numbers into Ukraine, and I would estimate there will be at least 100, maybe as many as 200, by midspring, call it the end of March, that creates real problems for Putin,” he said..Stavridis, who is a retired admiral, said Russian forces are stretched out on a long front of 400 to 600 miles, running from Russia down to the Black Sea and the Crimean Peninsula..“With these tanks, the Ukrainians can mask that armor and use it to punch through the Russian line, separate them, peel them apart, break the logistics chain,” he said..He also noted transfers of the tanks mark a “pivotal” moment in the land war and will be a “bad day” for Putin within the conflict itself.
